Re: SML.NET

Aaron S. Hawley wrote:
> oh, I wouldn't have doubted the schemer cadre. *smiley* i /was/ surprised
> by a crew of SML folks willing to do such a task.
> 
> all of this is source-available under free software licenses but doesn't
> all .NET still require Visual Studio, so no point in me even trying,
> right?
> /a

Well the schemers and the MLers are not all that dissimiliar.  The ML camp is
more mathy, and of course into types.  Schemers circa 1980 are into
metacircular evaluators and dynamic code loading/generation and all that
magical shit.  More modern schemers are also into types (just not totalitarian
compilers).  As for .NET, I don't know.  I hear the buzz but I haven't
actually looked into whether there's substance or not.  If you need VS, or a
non-sparc chip, well then it's not for me.

And BTW, ML is a super super cool language.

-d